Ohoma vs. Office of the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao

A birth already lawfully registered within thirty (30) days from birth cannot be the subject of a valid late registration; the belated second registration is void and must be cancelled, even if its entries are claimed to be the correct ones. The proper remedy for correcting erroneous entries in the valid first registration is a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108, which the court may resolve on the merits by virtue of a general prayer for "other reliefs just and equitable."

Petitioner Matron M. Ohoma (also known as Matiorico M. Ohomna) is an individual whose birth was recorded twice in the civil registry of Aguinaldo, Ifugao. The respondents are the Office of the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao and the Republic of the Philippines, the government offices charged with maintaining civil registry records and defending their integrity. The dispute implicates the civil registration framework under Act No. 3753 and its implementing rules, Article 412 of the Civil Code, and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which govern the registration and correction of entries in the civil registry.

Petitioner Matron M. Ohoma, also known as Matiorico M. Ohomna, was born on May 13, 1986 in Aguinaldo, Ifugao. His mother, Antonia Maingit (Antonia), reported his birth, which was recorded in the civil register of the Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao (LCR-Aguinaldo) on June 13, 1986 under Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 45-86 (the first birth certificate). That first certificate recorded his first name as "Matron" and his last name as "Ohoma."

Unknown to petitioner, a second registration of his birth was subsequently made. On February 8, 2000, his birth was belatedly recorded with the LCR-Aguinaldo under Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 2000-24 (the second birth certificate), which reflected the name "Matiorico Ohomna." Antonia was the informant in both instances and signed both birth certificates.

On March 26, 2014, petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, Branch 15, seeking cancellation of the first birth certificate. He averred that the first birth certificate contained erroneous entries — his first name was erroneously recorded as Matron instead of Matiorico, and his last name as Ohoma instead of Ohomna — and that he had been using the name Matiorico Ohomna in both his public and private transactions. He claimed that the second birth certificate reflected his true and correct data and should be the one retained. The petition included a prayer for "[o]ther reliefs just and equitable x x x."

The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and set it for hearing, directing publication in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks and notice to the concerned government offices. During the hearing, petitioner established the jurisdictional requirement of publication, which was admitted by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ifugao, the office deputized to assist the Office of the Solicitor General. An order of general default was issued, and petitioner was allowed to present his evidence ex-parte before the Clerk of Court. He presented his two birth certificates, his Elementary School Permanent Record, a copy of his Passport Application Form, and his Professional Driver's License.

The RTC granted the petition, finding that the first birth certificate contained errors that caused confusion as to petitioner's identity. The Republic challenged the ruling on appeal, and the CA reversed. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.

• Erroneous Entries in the First Birth Certificate: Petitioner maintained that his first birth certificate contained erroneous entries — his first name was recorded as "Matron" instead of "Matiorico" and his last name as "Ohoma" instead of "Ohomna" — and that these errors caused confusion as to his identity.
• Retention of the Second Birth Certificate: Petitioner argued that the second birth certificate reflected his true and correct data and should be the one retained, while the first should be cancelled.

• Invalidity of the Second Registration: The Republic challenged the validity of petitioner's second birth certificate on the ground that his birth could no longer be the subject of a second or another registration, as it had already been validly registered.
• Improper Remedy: The Republic argued that even assuming the first registration contained errors, such errors did not constitute valid grounds for its cancellation; the proper remedy was a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

• Cancellation of the First Birth Certificate: Whether the CA committed reversible error in annulling and setting aside the RTC ruling that ordered the cancellation of petitioner's first birth certificate.
• Jurisdiction to Resolve the Correction: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve the correction of petitioner's erroneous entries in the same petition, or whether petitioner had to refile.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Correction: Whether petitioner sufficiently established that his father's last name was Ohomna and not Ohoma.

• Cancellation of the First Birth Certificate: No. The first birth certificate was validly registered within thirty (30) days from birth; the second (late) registration is void and must be cancelled instead, even if its entries are claimed to be correct.
• Jurisdiction to Resolve the Correction: Yes. The RTC had jurisdiction to resolve the correction, the petition having complied with the procedural requirements under Rule 108 and included a general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable; the CA erred in holding that petitioner had to refile.
• Sufficiency of Evidence for Correction: No. Petitioner failed to establish by competent evidence that his father's surname was Ohomna; the correction of his first and last names should be denied.

• Cancellation of the First Birth Certificate: Under Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983, as amended, the birth of a child shall be registered within thirty (30) days from the time of birth in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the city or municipality where it occurred. Petitioner's birth had already been reported by his mother, Antonia, and duly recorded in the civil register of the LCR-Aguinaldo on June 13, 1986. Because the birth had already been lawfully registered within thirty days from birth under the first birth certificate, there could be no valid late registration. Consequently, the second birth certificate should be declared void and cancelled, even if the entries therein are claimed to be the correct ones.

• Jurisdiction to Resolve the Correction: While the petition specifically prayed for the cancellation of the first birth certificate and the retention of the second, the ultimate objective was to correct the erroneous entries pertaining to petitioner's first and last names. Rule 108 implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code, and the role of the court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. The action sought to correct a supposedly misspelled name and thus properly fell under Rule 108. Petitioner complied with the procedural requirements under Rule 108 — publication for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, and notice to the LCR-Aguinaldo, the OSG, and the NSO — and the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve the petition, which included a prayer for "[o]ther reliefs just and equitable x x x." A general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable enables the court to award reliefs supported by the complaint or other pleadings, by the facts admitted at trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if not specifically prayed for. The CA therefore erred in holding that petitioner had to refile another petition before the trial court could resolve his claim.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Correction: Petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that his father's last name was Ohomna and not Ohoma through competent evidence, such as the latter's birth certificate, the certificate of his marriage to petitioner's mother on January 30, 1986, or a government-issued identification card or record. While the first name may be freely selected by the parents for the child, the last name to which the child is entitled is fixed by law. Although petitioner's Elementary School Permanent Record and Professional Driver's License identify him as Matiorico Ohomna, these are insufficient to grant the petition. The real name of a person is that given in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was baptized in his Church, by which he was known in the community, or which he has adopted. Moreover, Antonia was the informant in both instances and signed both birth certificates, but a perusal of her signatures on the two certificates shows that they are materially different from each other, and petitioner failed to show any plausible explanation why she signed as Antonia Ohoma on the first birth certificate and as Antonia Ohomna on the second.

• Late Registration of Birth — A birth that has already been lawfully registered within thirty (30) daysfrom birth cannot be the subject of a valid late registration. The belated second registration is void and must be cancelled, even if its entries are claimed to be the correct ones. In this case, because petitioner's birth had been recorded on June 13, 1986, within thirty days of his May 13, 1986 birth, the 2000 late registration was void and was ordered cancelled.
• Rule 108 and Article 412 of the Civil Code — Article 412 provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, and Rule 108 implements the judicial proceedings for correction or cancellation of entries. The role of the court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded in the civil registry. The correction of a misspelled name falls under Rule 108.
• General Prayer for "Other Reliefs Just and Equitable" — A general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable appearing in a petition enables the court to award reliefs supported by the complaint or other pleadings, by the facts admitted at trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs are not specifically prayed for. This allowed the RTC to resolve the correction of petitioner's names despite the specific prayer for cancellation of the first birth certificate.
• Real Name of a Person — The real name of a person is that given in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was baptized in his Church, by which he was known in the community, or which he has adopted. Thus, petitioner's school record and driver's license were insufficient to warrant correction of his name.
• Surname Fixed by Law — While the first name may be freely selected by the parents for the child, the last name to which the child is entitled is fixed by law. Petitioner's failure to prove his father's surname by competent evidence therefore barred the correction of his last name.

• "there can be no valid late registration of petitioner's birth as the same had already been lawfully registered within 30 days from his birth under the first birth certificate." — This states the ratio decidendi on the invalidity of the late registration, the core ground for cancelling the second birth certificate.
• "it is the second birth certificate that should be declared void and correspondingly cancelled even if the entries therein are claimed to be the correct ones." — This states the dispositive legal consequence: the second, not the first, birth certificate is the proper subject of cancellation, regardless of the accuracy of its entries.
• "The role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein." — This defines the court's function in Rule 108 proceedings and supports the holding that the RTC could resolve the correction in the same petition.
• "the real name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was baptized in his Church or by which he was known in the community, or which he has adopted." — This states the doctrine on a person's real name, cited from Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, and explains why petitioner's school record and driver's license were insufficient.

• Republic vs. Mercadera, 652 Phil. 195, 211 (2010) — Cited for the rule that the role of the court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded in the civil registry.
• Ilusorio vs. Ilusorio, G.R. No. 210475, April 11, 2018 — Cited for the rule that a general prayer for other reliefs just and equitable enables the court to award reliefs supported by the pleadings and evidence even if not specifically prayed for.
• Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992, 209 SCRA 189, 194 — Cited for the rule that while the first name may be freely selected by the parents, the last name to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.
• Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 99 Phil. 1004, 1007-1008 (1956) — Cited for the rule that the real name of a person is that given in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was baptized or known in the community.

• Article 412, Civil Code — Provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. This is the statutory basis for the Rule 108 proceedings filed by petitioner.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court — Implements the judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412. The correction of petitioner's misspelled name properly fell under Rule 108, and the RTC had jurisdiction to resolve the petition.
• Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983, as amended by Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 — Requires that the birth of a child be registered within thirty (30) days from the time of birth in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the city or municipality where it occurred. Because petitioner's birth was registered within this period, the subsequent late registration was void.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.